Fox’s Flawed Football Analogy

The White House’s beef with Fox News Channel continues, as do the right-wing cable channel’s bizarre attempts to defend their journalistic integrity. Take this example from today’s New York Times (10/22/09). Obviously the White House is most offended by the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck; this is unfair, according to Fox:

But Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox, said the White House was conflating the networkÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬ÃƒÂ¢”Å¾Â¢s commentary with its news coverage. That, Mr. Clemente said, “would be like Fox News blaming the White House senior staff for the Washington Redskins’ losing record.”

Last time I checked,there were no White House staffersmoonlighting in the Redskins’ front office. Beck and Hannity, on the other hand, actually work at Fox News Channel–and were putthere by Fox bosses. The analogy makes no sense, but then again it’s hard to imagine a better defense for Fox‘s behavior.

Related

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

You are no doubt correct, frank. In a free society, however, we fight words with words, and ideas with alternatives. We do not suppress, sanction, threaten, exclude, or marginalize. In fact, ideas that are patently ridiculous–as your assessment suggests those of Fox’s are–are best exposed to the light of public scrutiny, and therefore ridicule. This requires that we give all speakers and writers the forum each demands so that their lunacy exposes them for the fools they are, and they become quickly discredited. The only downside we risk is that their ideas may be good ones, and we have too quickly misjudged them. But therein lies the hidden and happy benefit that we might be better off for having given others the chance to be heard.

It sounds like a New Fairness Doctrine is in order. If not, then labeling that would quickly alert the average citizen to the difference between news and commentary. An entire generation cannot possibly know what news was like before Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and therefore cannot tell the difference between news and commentary. To most people, they are one and the same. Fortunately many of us know better.

Ah, it’s been a while since I’ve heard from John Stuart Mill. What would he think about the fact that something like FAIR is required given corporate control of media? Or, to put it more bluntly, who the hell knows about FAIR anyway, and what impact does the MSM have on the majority of American “thinking”?

“In fact, ideas that are patently ridiculous–as your assessment suggests those of Fox’s are–are best exposed to the light of public scrutiny, and therefore ridicule. This requires that we give all speakers and writers the forum each demands so that their lunacy exposes them for the fools they are, and they become quickly discredited.”

What forum is Fox being denied to promote their views? No one is threatening to revoke their broadcast license or regulate what they can and can’t say. The First Amendment gives individuals the right to say what they please as long as it doesn’t threaten public order, but compels no one – even the president – to listen to what they have to say or to speak with them. You argue – correctly – that discredit should accrue to Fox for making lunatic statements, then you criticize the White House for making that discredit tangible in any way. How would you prefer to see discredit reflected? Loss of advertisers? Over 100 sponsors have dropped their ads from Beck’s program in the past few months, but Fox continues to subsidize the show. The best way to discredit a news organization is for public figures to refuse to deal with it. By obligating the WH to deal with Fox on Fox’s terms you cede the network by default the credibility you claim it doesn’t deserve.

jjcomet, I’m not sure you’re addressing me since your argument refers to some criticism of the White House, which I certainly did not make, and you seem frustrated because there is no decent discrediting mechanism available in my post. But you did quote me, so I’ll bite.

You know, of course, that the First Amendment does not give us the right of free speech. We have that right as a matter of natural law. The First Amendment does, however, protect us from the government’s attempts to stifle us.

That said, non-government people are free to respond and retaliate to speech they disagree with in any non-criminal way they choose. If you don’t like what I say, you are free to call me a name, write ugly things about me, refuse to buy my products and services, spread ill will about me, and a host of other things as you wish. You can’t drown me or have me arrested, though.

The government can’t even do any of those things. The government–if it follows the law–must ignore the content of all speech. The government must be completely oblivious of all things said to it and about it that are less than complimentary. Sticks and stones and all that. This is the crux of the issue at hand. The government attempted to choose which news agencies it would favor based on the content of their reporting and commentary. That is not their privilege, by law. Of course, that may be yours, but it is not theirs.

….In a free society…we fight words with words, and ideas with alternatives. We do not suppress, sanction, threaten, exclude, or marginalize. In fact, ideas that are patently ridiculous–as your assessment suggests those of Fox’s are–are best exposed to the light of public scrutiny, and therefore ridicule. This requires that we give all speakers and writers the forum each demands so that their lunacy exposes them for the fools they are, and they become quickly discredited. The only downside we risk is that their ideas may be good ones, and we have too quickly misjudged them. But therein lies the hidden and happy benefit that we might be better off for having given others the chance to be heard.

[&, of course, there might be the downside that that may be their only news source, chosen or not.]

Ray K Says:
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 pm

It sounds like a New Fairness Doctrine is in order.

[Amen, brother!]

Marx Says:
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 pm

Ah, it’s been a while since I’ve heard from John Stuart Mill. What would he think about the fact that something like FAIR is required given corporate control of media? Or, to put it more bluntly, who the hell knows about FAIR anyway, and what impact does the MSM have on the majority of American “thinking”?

[Well Harpo, YOU know about FAIR. But, unfortunately the impact is slow in coming.]

If the White House had criticized the opinions expressed by Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or any one else as being unfair, it would be within its right to do so, but saying that Fox News is not really a news organization is way off base. They have real reporters covering real news stories and in some cases risking their lives to do so. Every news network has commentary. All commentary is biased; that is the nature of commentary. All news organizations have shows that involve commentary, and only one is accused of not being a news organization. If this was an attempt to punish Fox News, it has had the opposite effect; Fox News ratings have gone even higher. The White House has really stepped in it this time and it is going to take a long time to clean the stinky stuff off its shoes.

Say what you will about Beck and Hannity, but when I see the video clips and hear with my own ears what many of the Obama administration have said on many topics that I consider guaranteed to the citizens of this country, then it does not matter if it is “news” or “commentary”. I am smart enough to know what is someones opinion and what is fact. If you can’t, that is your problem. At this point in time I think people are still free to chose what they watch and listen to. FOX has the most viewers in the time slots from 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM, so deal with it. Rush has more listeners than any five liberals together. O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity radio shows are successful because people CHOSE to listen. Duh, what does that tell you, GENIUS?